Seaborne Contacts between the Aegean, the Balkans and the Central Mediterranean in the 3rd Millennium BC – The Unfolding of the Mediterranean World

by Joseph Maran,

21 May 2008

Published also in: I. Galanaki, H. Tomas, Y. Galanakis and R. Laffineur (eds.), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas: Prehistory across Borders. Proceedings of the International Conference Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe, University of Zagreb, 11-14 April 2005, Aegaeum 27 (2007) 3-21.

In the last
decades the research interest in the study of pre-Mycenaean contacts of the
Aegean region with the geographical zones to the north and west has
considerably diminished. While until the early 1970ies there was still much
debate going on about aspects like the northern links of cord-decorated pottery
or of the origin of the tumuli in Greece,[1] already ten years later such subjects and the whole problem of possible Balkan
connections of the earlier parts of the Aegean Bronze Age had almost disappeared
as research topics of Aegean Archaeology. The question arises why this was the
case. One reason stems from the fact that after the acceptance of scientific
dating methods comparative stratigraphy has lost its importance for
establishing the absolute chronology of Balkan cultures, which can now be
independently dated. Hence, there seemed to be little need to look for
cross-links between north and south. But in abandoning the archaeological
comparing of material culture it was overlooked that this method is still
important, but not so much for chronology as for inferring connections between
different societies. Another reason is undoubtedly the language-barrier, since
the linguistic diversity of Southeast Europe and the lack of synoptic studies
in English do not make it an easy task to familiarize with the prehistory of
the Balkans.

But I suspect
that besides the mentioned points the described decline in research interest
was triggered by more fundamental issues. One of them relates to the fact that
the treatment of the subject in the past has been marred by its linkage to
diffusionism and migrationism, that is explanatory approaches which since the
advent of Processual Archaeology for good reasons have been castigated as
methodologically unsound. In the Aegean, migrationism in the last decades has
certainly discredited studies on pre-Mycenaean contacts to the North. The
simplistic view of hoards of Balkan or Eastern European populations
periodically invading and destroying Aegean cultures, and moreover the linkage
to the controversial issue of the “Coming of the Greeks” has given a bad name
to the whole field of research.

Outside of the
Aegean, on the other hand, the repercussions of diffusionism have contributed
to the diminishing research interest in investigating possible contacts to the Aegean. Understandably, the counter-movement has been strongest in those countries most
severely affected in the past by diffusionism. Considering that until the
1960ies achievements of early cultures in the West and Central Mediterranean,
like copper metallurgy, fortifications with horseshoe-shaped bastions and
Megalithic monuments were all attributed to the influence of Eastern
Mediterranean civilizations, it was an important step to counter these claims
and to look into the indigenous roots of these phenomena.[2] But in the meantime, these
initially refreshing new ideas have themselves become an orthodoxy, which
through its emphasis on explaining cultural change in terms of autochthonous
social and economical trajectories runs the risk of systematically minimizing
or even neglecting the importance of outside stimuli to societies.

The Zagreb conference is an encouraging sign that within Aegean Archaeology there exists the
wish to go beyond diffusionism and migrationism and to reconsider the
importance of Bronze Age and Early Iron Age contacts of the Aegean to the North
and West. In the following I will try to outline some of the reasons why I
think the subject of this conference should be of prime interest for Aegean
Archaeology.

Hitherto,
scholarly discussions on the impact of expanding trade connections in later
prehistory have to a large extent focused on the question of economic links
between different groups of peoples and especially on the distribution and
mechanisms of exchange of certain raw materials, finished products and
technological skills. In such discussions, the knowledge of the “natural”
routes of exchange over mountain-passes, through river valleys or over the sea
is usually taken for granted, thereby unconsciously transferring today’s so
familiar geographical impression of the world to the distant past. But such an
attitude confuses cause and effect, inasmuch as the knowledge about the shape
and nature of rivers and the sea did not exist from the beginning, but revealed
itself through the accumulation of information gained through these very
contacts. Moreover, M.W. Helms has reminded us that notions of space and
distance are culturally created.[3] The dichotomy between “heaven” and “earth”, that is between horizontal distance
as something ordinary and vertical distance as something supernatural for
instance, simply does not exist in all societies. Instead, irrespective of the
direction to which one moves, the way in which the surrounding world is
conceived may often be intimately linked with religious ideas in general and
cosmology in particular.[4] Accordingly, any change in knowledge about distant areas was bound to have
repercussions on the world views of society at large.

The idea of the Mediterranean as a unified and coherent geographical entity which left its imprint not only
on nature but also on the ways of living found its permanent expression in the
works of F. Braudel.[5] A diametrically opposed position to Braudel was formulated by Y. Shavit,[6] who argued that the presumed
unity and uniformity of the Mediterranean is a mere illusion created mainly at
the historian’s and geographer’s desks. One does not have to subscribe to the
entire consequence of the latter view[7] in order to realize that many elements which seem to be the outcome of similar
environmental conditions were in reality spread through human activities. Thus,
part of what Braudel saw as the Mediterranean way of living was not imposed by
nature on man, but rather by man on nature.[8] This becomes clear, when we turn to one of the hallmarks of Mediterranean
unity, namely the “triad” of olive tree, wine and wheat. There is probably no
handbook on the Mediterranean which does not refer to the distribution of the
olive tree as an example for the uniformity of climate. Indeed, the wild forms
of the olive tree, the oleaster, as well as of wine and the fig are all
concentrated on coastal regions of the Mediterranean, thus underlining the
indisputable link to certain climatic preconditions.[9] However, the domestication of
these plants and also of wheat does not seem to have taken place in many
regions, but rather specifically in the Near East, from where they were brought
to other areas of the Mediterranean.[10]

Therefore, the
traits usually cited as evidence for the cultural unity of the Mediterranean are the outcome of a multi-layered spatial process brought about by the
gradual expansion of interconnections between societies. We can be fairly
certain that in the early 1st millennium BC at the latest some sort
of geographical concept of the Mediterranean must have existed, because
otherwise the waves of Phoenician and Greek colonization to the west could not
have been carried out so systematically.[11] The existence of such spatial knowledge is of course amply documented in the
Odyssey, and, from this point of view, P. Horden and N. Purcell are right to
call this work of literature “the creator of the Mediterranean”.[12] Nevertheless, we have to bear
in mind that in antiquity the perceptions of the form and size of the Mediterranean differed significantly from ours.[13] In looking at the Tabula Peutingeriana we realize that in Late Roman times the Mediterranean was conceived as consisting of linear routes defined by sequences of towns,
harbours and natural landmarks, like mountains, bays and islands, thus putting
the emphasis on the rendering of the mainland and not of the sea.[14] Such concepts of Periplous or
“spazio odologico”, as it was called P. Janni,[15] are rooted in the phenomenon of “mental mapping”, that is the creation of
cognitive images which chart the relative location of points of special
interest to an individual or to society at large.[16] Mental maps reflect a
subjective point of view and they are based on the values and ideological
conceptions of a particular society at a particular time. Therefore, in our
view, such images only give a selective and distorted impression of physical
geography and are subject to constant change because they are directly linked
to patterns of interaction preferred at that time and to the resulting
alterations in the flow of spatial knowledge[17].
Cognitive images of space are nevertheless of extreme importance, since, for
instance in the case of the Mediterranean they helped to subdivide the vast
expanse of the sea into segments and to create a structure which contributed to
a feeling of security amidst the dangers of sea journeys so vividly described
in the Odyssey.

In summary, I
would argue that in order to grasp the real importance of expanding connections
between prehistoric societies in the Mediterranean we have to conceive this sea
not as a priori existing, but rather as emerging exactly through these
activities and the associated changes in spatial concepts. Furthermore, we
should bear in mind that the ever-changing perceptions of the surrounding world
were tied to cosmological concepts which gave the connections between distant
societies of the early Mediterranean a potential ideological significance going
far beyond the notion of neutral transactions between partners guided only by
economical motives.[18]

The geographical
knowledge which provided the background for the Phoenician and Greek
colonization movements must have been accumulated in the preceding periods of
the Bronze Age.[19] In the Mediterranean especially the centuries roughly between 1600 and 1000 BC
brought about a new dimension of what Purcell and Horden have called the
connectivity of microregions.[20] With this term they designate “…the various ways in which microregions cohere
that may range in size from small clusters to something approaching the entire Mediterranean”.[21] The patterns of maritime connectivity which we can observe from the beginning
of the Aegean Late Bronze Age spanned already wide parts of the Mediterranean, and they must have found their reflection in mental maps used by the
societies participating in the exchange. But the current article will not deal
with this advanced stage of interconnections. Instead, I will go back in time
to the 3rd millennium BC and argue that what we see in the Late
Bronze Age is based on much earlier structures of exchange. Before I will
attempt to disentangle the strands of what we know of the earliest periods of
Mediterranean connections, I first have to address two pitfalls of
interpretation which have to be avoided.

The first danger
lies in perceiving the increase in knowledge about the Mediterranean and its
coasts as continuous and linear. It seems to me, that we are rather confronted
with a long-term phenomenon which had ups and downs and in which previously
achieved levels of knowledge were again lost. This particularly applies to the
earliest phases of the penetration of the Mediterranean, during which, as we
will see, wide networks of maritime communication temporarily emerged, but then
disintegrated probably because the participating groups lacked the long-term
political stability of, for instance, the societies involved in the longue
durée of trade relations from the Minoan Old Palace Period until the end of
the Mycenaean palatial period. The latter point leads us to the second danger
which consists in the temptation of implicitly or explicitly transferring
economical and political structures of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC to the distant past, and to use them as blueprints for modelling
earlier patterns of connectivity. Above all, it would be a mistake to project
North-South- and West-East-divides in social complexity which existed during
the 2nd millennium BC to earlier times and to automatically assume
that Greece and the Aegean must have had during the entire 3rd millennium BC a more complex social structure and a more elaborate
technological and economical level than its neighbors in the Balkans and in the
Central Mediterranean. Instead, it is necessary to sketch for each
chronological horizon the specific structures of connectivity and the driving
forces behind the exchange. As I will try to show, the development of early
Mediterranean relations was brought about by the interplay of many groups who
pursued their own interests, and the groups with the highest social complexity
were not necessarily the ones with the most pronounced maritime mobility.

A remarkable
example for the fact that the emergence of patterns of maritime connectivity is
not tied to high social complexity is the dispersal of farming economy in the Mediterranean. Until not so long a while ago it was believed that the “Neolithic
Revolution” spread from the Near East to Europe by land. Nowadays, we know that
this was only half of the truth and that especially during the first waves of
the diffusion of plant cultivation and animal husbandry in the 7th millennium BC sea-borne movements must have played a decisive role.[22] Due to space constraints I
will not tackle the issue of the mechanisms of Neolithization, either through
colonisation or through acculturation of Mesolithic populations. The more
important aspect in our context is that the first domesticated animals and
cultivated plants had to be moved over-sea,[23] irrespective of whether this came about through the movement of peoples or
through exchange networks between Neolithic and Mesolithic populations.

This brings us
to the crucial question of the nature of early Mediterranean sea-craft. It is
usually assumed that until the advent of sailing ships shortly before 2000 BC
paddled canoes and longboats, like the ones depicted on Early Cycladic “frying
pans” and on stones of the megalithic temple of Hal Tarxien on Malta[24] were the only means of
Mediterranean sea-craft. C. Broodbank has estimated an average daily travelling
radius of a longboat with a full crew of about 20 to 50 km.[25] As however M. Wedde rightly
remarked, the first depictions of the sail appearing in EM III already show a
fully fledged system based on wind-power. He concludes that evidently “…the
Aegean seafarers had perfected their sails before pictorial evidence becomes
available”.[26] Thus, the current picture of more than four millennia of technological
stagnation in boat-building and then suddenly at the end of the 3rd millennium BC a turnaround with the invention of the sail may be misleading.
With these remarks I do not want to imply that there were sailing-boats already
during the Early Neolithic. In fact, we do not yet know anything about their
shape. At least, thanks to the spectacular new boat representations seemingly
dating to the Chalcolithic period from the excavation of Chr. A. Televantou in
Strophilas on Andros, we get for the first time valuable insights into types of
sea-crafts considerably earlier than the ones from the 3rd millennium BC. According to the preliminary available information ships of
different types and size are depicted.[27] This new find underlines the variety of sea-craft used prior to the Early
Bronze Age and reminds us that we should not envisage even the Early Neolithic
boats as too light and primitive, because, as Broodbank and T.F. Strasser have
calculated, heavy loads of peoples, animals and supplies of crops had to be
transported.[28] Such boats formed the precondition for the spreading of farming economy first
from Anatolia to Crete and Southern Greece and thereafter in the course of a
few centuries to other parts of the Mediterranean.

It is unknown to
what degree these Early Neolithic patterns of connectivity across the
Mediterranean were temporarily transformed into more stable exchange structures
between Italy, the Balkans and the Aegean. In the long-run, however, they must
have disintegrated, and in the millennia following the spreading of agriculture
evidence for the continuation of long-distance contacts between East and West
in the Mediterranean is lacking. To be sure, there were important Neolithic and
Copper Age interregional zones of maritime interaction, for instance for the
distribution of Liparian and Sardinian obsidian varieties in the Central and
Western Mediterranean[29] and for Melian obsidian in the Aegean,[30] but what is missing are signs for a cross-linking of these separate exchange
networks. Revealingly, the first acme of metallurgy during the Balkan and
Carpathian Copper Age of the late 5th and the early 4th millennia BC did not affect Italy or other parts of the Central Mediterranean[31]. Even within Southeast Europe
prior to the 3rd millennium BC seaborne travel in the Adriatic and
Ionian Sea is archaeologically not well attested, and the existing evidence for
long-distance contacts in the zone between the Carpathian Basin and the Aegean
point to land-routes along the major river valleys.[32] As examples I just want to
mention the distribution first of Carpathian obsidian during the 5th millennium BC to the Northern Aegean[33] and secondly of the vessels of the “type Bratislava” during the early Baden culture, in the centuries around 3500 to 3300 BC.[34]

A major change
in this situation occurred in the beginning of the 3rd millennium
BC, and this millennium proved to be of particular significance not only for
the emergence of interconnections between different zones of the Mediterranean
but in all likelihood also for the increase of spatial knowledge. I will divide
my discussion into three chronological horizons. The first from roughly 2900 to
2500 BC, the second from 2500 to 2200 BC and the third from 2200 to 2000 BC.

The first
horizon leads us back to the time of the Vučedol culture in parts of the Carpathian Basin and the Balkans, contemporary with the later part of EH I and the earlier of
EH II in Greece (Pl. V).[35] It is during this time of the early 3rd millennium BC that we find
in certain parts of a zone stretching from the West Balkans in the Northwest to
Mesopotamia in the Southeast clear evidence of marked social inequality. In
exceptionally rich grave assemblages belonging to the Montenegrinian Vučedol
culture[36] which derive from the central stone cist-graves of the tumuli of Mala Gruda[37] and Velika Gruda[38] in the Tivat plain near the
bay of Kotor as well as from the tumulus of Boljevića Gruda[39] near Podgorica indications for
contacts to the south appear. The first link to the Aegean manifests itself, as
first M. Primas has recognized,[40] in small golden rings probably all belonging to head ornaments.[41] One of the two types of these
rings has close comparisons in the so called R-graves of Steno, an EH II
tumulus necropolis on the Ionian island of Lefkas,[42] and therefore Primas has
proposed the name “type Lefkas”.[43] It has to be emphasized, though, that in spite of this designation the centre
of distribution of such golden rings lies in the Balkans and in the Carpathian Basin,[44] with the pieces from Lefkas
being southern outliers within the general distribution and probably
representing Balkan imports to Northwest Greece. Since in the R-graves we have
clear signs for contacts with contemporary sites in the Peloponnese and the
Cyclades, it is not difficult to envisage a maritime route along the eastern
coasts of the Adriatic and Ionian Sea and then onwards to the Aegean. From this
point of view, other indications for interactions between the Aegean and the
Adriatic-Ionian zone should not come as a surprise.[45] I. Papageorgiou has recently
drawn attention to a type of golden ring, which is probably related to the
“type Lefkas”, but in contrast to the latter is up till now restricted to the
Aegean region.[46] This may represent an Aegean emulation of a special object type of Balkan
derivation. On the other hand, the golden dagger from Mala Gruda (Pl. Ia:1) is likely to belong to a group of daggers of the EB 2 period in Anatolia, from
where it was probably imported to Montenegro (Pl. Ia:1-5, Ib).[47] One of the Anatolian
comparisons, a piece from Alaca Höyük (Pl. Ia:5), also consists of precious
metal, in this case silver.[48] In addition, silver daggers, albeit of slightly different types are known from Crete.[49]

A still open
question relates to the extent of early 3rd millennium BC patterns
of connectivity to the west and to the north. Currently, I don’t see any
unequivocal evidence that groups in Italy participated in the described
exchange.[50] That we are nevertheless confronted with the prospect of a much wider impact of
these networks is possibly demonstrated by the intriguing appearance of a small
Mesopotamian limestone figurine of a type characteristic for the earlier 3rd millennium, which came to light in 1958 in an excavation in Germany, at
Weilmünster-Dietenhausen in the central part of Hessen.[51] There is no evidence that the
figurine which was found in sediment underneath an Iron Age tumulus was
smuggled in by workers, and S. Hansen argues convincingly that it might have
reached Central Europe in the early 3rd millennium BC at the time of
the Corded Ware culture through exchange networks in the Adriatic-Ionian
Region.[52] In support of this conclusion it can be noted, that already at an early stage
of the 3rd millennium BC objects of Near Eastern derivation found
their way to the west. In addition to the Mala Gruda dagger there is the
cylinder seal from Kapros grave D on Amorgos the decoration of which is linked
to the Nineveh 5 style of Upper Mesopotamia.[53]

The analysis of
exceptionally rich grave assemblages and hoards appearing in the zone between
the Eastern Adriatic region and the Near East has led Primas and Hansen to
infer certain supra-regional structural similarities in the way in which
elevated social status was expressed through non-utilitarian objects.[54] This applies for instance to
the custom of depositing silver and golden daggers which appears, apart from
the isolated West Balkan occurrence in Mala Gruda,[55] only in the Aegean and the
Near East. Other items like the golden head ornaments seem to be common to the
Balkans and the Aegean, while axes made of exceptional stones or of silver
during the first half of the 3rd millennium BC are concentrated on
the area of the Vučedol culture.[56] To use terms like “prestige goods” or “symbols of power” somewhat misses an
important point inasmuch as the value of such objects was not inherent and
fixed but had to be created by incorporating them in social practices through
which prestige was affirmed, won or lost. Some of these practices were probably
based on the conspicuous wearing or employing of the objects by the living,
while others evidently requested the dedication of the objects to the dead or
to supernatural powers. It is likely that an important part of the significance
of these special objects rested on narratives linked to their “social life”,
that means their region of origin and their previous owners.[57] This also accounts for the
movement of certain objects over wide distance, since M. Helms has demonstrated
how the displaying of “exotic” items, in our case, for instance, the Lefkas
head ornaments, the Mala Gruda dagger, or the Dietenhausen figurine, underlined
the connection of the owner and his or her family to powerful and mysterious
beings in distant lands.[58]

Although already
in the early 3rd millennium BC certain objects were widely spread
through the Mediterranean, I do not think that this was accomplished by a
direct exchange between, for instance, peoples of the Cyclades and of Montenegro. As an alternative I propose a structure resembling the model of “inter-locking
exchange networks” defined by M. Rowlands for the terrestrial trade of the
European Bronze Age.[59] This would mean that the large interaction-zones of the Aegean and
Adriatic-Ionian region were subdivided by a mosaic of overlapping networks with
different range. With the help of this structure raw materials and finished
products could have moved over wide distances without a primary supplier and a
final recipient ever getting into direct contact. The difference to earlier
exchange structures of the Neolithic consisted in a new dimension of social
inequality which was simultaneously the background and the outcome of the flow
of new kinds of commodities. While archaeologically only finished products give
evidence for the exchange, it is likely that raw materials like copper and gold
provided important stimuli for the contacts. Even tin from possibly Balkan
sources[60] may have circulated in small amounts, since around 3000 BC the first bronze
objects make their appearance in the West Balkans and in the Northern Aegean.[61] The commodities may have
spread, like in the kula-ring,[62] through ritualized gift-exchange in the course of visiting expeditions headed
by members of the elite. I assume that such contacts not only contributed to
the dissemination of goods, but also of information about distant lands and
their populations through tales told at the occasion of the visits.

Whether it is
appropriate to integrate the emerging structures of maritime connectivity in a
Centre-Periphery-Model seems doubtful to me, at least not in a model which regards
Greece as a “centre”. If one would really want to claim asymmetrical
relations based on differing degrees of social complexity, during this period
some regions of the Balkans and the Carpathian Basin would seem to represent
much better candidates for “centres” than the Aegean. Not only did the Vučedol
culture have the most dynamic copper metallurgy at that time in Europe,[63] but we encounter in its
mortuary and settlement evidence signs of social inequality which in Greece are
only equalled by the R-graves, that is in the zone with the closest ties to the
north.

The next
chronological horizon between 2500 and 2200 BC (Pl. V) is accompanied by
profound changes in the Aegean. In Southern Greece during the so-called period
of the corridor-houses of the second half of EH II we are confronted with the
first examples of imposing architecture. To this category belong the
corridor-houses themselves and the hitherto unique Circular Building of Tiryns,
a huge tower with a diameter of about 28 m. In addition, we find the
administrative use of seals, specialized storage-facilities, and settlement
hierarchies, all signs pointing to an increase in social complexity.[64] Some of these innovations
probably were adopted from Anatolia or even the Levant, because just at that time
we note an intensification of trans-Aegean contacts, which manifests itself not
only in the westward spread of certain shapes of Anatolian fine table ware, but
also in the first significant use of tin bronze in the Aegean.[65] As Broodbank[66] has pointed out, it is not
difficult to envisage the Aegean during these centuries as being part of an
early “world system”, which had the Near East during the late Early Dynastic
and Akkad-period at its centre.

At the same time
in the western and central parts of the Mediterranean an exciting new pattern
of connectivity unfolds. Beginning around 2500 BC Southern France, Sardinia,
parts of the Tyrrhenian side of the Italian mainland and Sicily become part of
the Bell Beaker phenomenon.[67] The synchronicity of the North South spread of the Bell Beaker with the
East-West diffusion of Anatolian table ware in the Aegean is remarkable. In
both cases new kinds of drinking vessels originating in distant areas were
accepted and integrated in local feasting customs in which they probably were
employed as signs of social distinction.[68] In light of the development after 2200 BC to which we will turn to soon, it
would seem logical to assume that the exchange circuits in the Tyrrhenian and Aegean Sea were linked already at that time. Yet, it is difficult to find arguments
supporting such a notion. As for the Bell Beaker phenomenon, it is striking
that during its early stage it was concentrated on specific areas of the
Tyrrhenian side of Italy. Whatever may have been exchanged in the Adriatic-Ionian
region during that time, it doesn’t seem to have been the Bell Beakers, since
along the Eastern Adriatic coast this vessel does not occur, while on the
Adriatic side of Central and Southern Italy examples of true Bell Beakers are
next to unknown.[69] Moreover, in general the whole Adriatic-Ionian region between 2500 and 2200 BC
has not yet yielded unequivocal signs for North-South connections comparable to
the ones in the previous centuries.

There is,
however, one intriguing piece of evidence which may indeed point to some
distant reflection of the Bell Beaker phenomenon in the Aegean. Already in 1923
St. Xanthoudides recognized that a group of small rectangular or oval stone
objects with two, and in one case even four, perforations deriving from the
vaulted tombs of the Mesara in southern Crete bear resemblance to the famous
Bell beaker stone wrist-guards (Pl. IV:1-3).[70] He nevertheless decided to interpret the implements as whetstones, and he may
very well have been right, because with the exception of the example with four
perforations, all other pieces are morphologically very simple. In Lerna
similar stone objects proved to be typical for Lerna IV.[71] E. Banks regarded it as
unlikely that they had served as whetstones because she did not observe any
traces which would point to such a use.[72] She couldn’t exclude a function as wrist-guards, but found this likewise not
plausible, since the objects were not associated with arrowheads. All in all,
she opted in favor of an ornamental use. But even if this group of objects is
related to Bell Beaker wrist-guards the decisive question would be to what
chronological horizon this link would belong. As mentioned, the majority of
pieces from Lerna date to EH III, while, due to the lack of closed deposits,
the inventories of the Mesara tombs have a notoriously wide “error margin”
ranging from EM I or II to the beginning of the Middle Minoan period.[73] This means that the objects
under discussion may all date to the time horizon between 2200 and 2000 BC during
which we have ample evidence for interconnections between the Balkans, Italy and the Aegean. Indeed, extremely slender wrist-guards with two perforations resembling the
so-called whetstones from Crete derive from chronological phases in Northern
Italy (cf. Pl. IV:4), the Eastern Adriatic region and Eastern Central Europe
(cf. Pl. IV:5) which are already contemporary with the Central European Early
Bronze Age of the latest part of the 3rd millennium.[74]

While
accordingly for the second chronological horizon the evidence for possible
links between the Aegean, the West Balkans and the Central Mediterranean
interaction zones is inconclusive, we are on much firmer ground to claim that
during the third horizon between 2200 and 2000 BC wide parts of the Mediterranean were interconnected. The most important aspect within these far-reaching
contacts is the expansion of the Cetina phenomenon from its centre in the
Eastern Adriatic region and its hinterland to all coastal zones around the
Adriatic and Ionian Sea (Pl. II-III, V). This phenomenon for a short time
represented a common denominator for areas from the Caput Adriae in the North
to the Maltese Islands and the Peloponnese in the South which before and after
this time have followed very different cultural trajectories. Without going
into details, it should be pointed out that in the last two decades it became
evident that specific elements of shape and of the syntax, as well as the
motives of incised and impressed decoration are shared by pottery groups
deriving from the Peloponnese (cf. Pl. II:1.5.7.10; IIIa:1-2.5) the Cetina
culture (cf. Pl. II:3-4.6.9.11.13-14) and the Tarxien Cemetery culture (cf. Pl.
II:2.8; IIIa:3.6).[75] During the last years new research has added significantly to the corpus of
comparisons. This especially applies to the finds from the recent excavations
in Olympia, whose long-distance relations have been thoroughly analyzed by J.
Rambach[76].
Outside of Southern Greece new evidence suggests that some of the forms of
pottery which were thought to be restricted to only certain areas of the Cetina
phenomenon have a wider distribution. The neck-handled amphora which until
recently was known from Olympia (Pl. II:10), the West Balkans (Pl. II:13-14) and
possibly from Malta[77] is also attested, as shown by L. Cataldo, in the material from the chamber-tomb
of Altamura-Casal Sabini in Apulia together with other examples of
Cetina-pottery (Pl. II:12).[78] The so-called Bass bowl with incised decoration, which was hitherto only common
to the Peloponnese (Pl. II:1) and the Maltese Islands (Pl. II:2), seems to be
represented by at least one example in the core-area of the Cetina culture
among the finds from the tumulus 2 of the necropolis of Shkrel in Northern Albania (Pl. II:3).[79] The vessel from Shkrel appears to be a mixture between an EH III form[80] and a typical pedestal-footed
vessel of the Cetina culture. In my opinion it belongs to a group of ceramic
“hybrids” which are characterized by the blending of different pottery
traditions and which can be found in the whole area of distribution of the
Cetina phenomenon.[81]

In light of the
extraordinary importance of the Cetina phenomenon for the emergence of new
Mediterranean exchange patterns, a few words about its chronological position
seem appropriate. In 1995 Ph. della Casa put forward a considerably earlier
dating for the Cetina culture than was hitherto proposed, inasmuch as he
correlated it with the earlier part of the Bell Beaker phenomenon between 2500
and 2200 BC.[82] There can be little doubt that della Casa has rightly pointed to the insecurity
surrounding the internal chronology of Cetina which stems from insufficient
stratigraphic evidence and very few 14C-dates.[83] Still, there are clear
indications coming from outside the Eastern Adriatic region that what is called
Cetina culture must at least partially be significantly later than suggested by
della Casa. In Greece all contexts with Cetina-like pottery date to EH III in
the sense of the classical definition by J.L. Caskey.[84] According to 14C
dates this phase cannot have started much earlier than 2200 BC (Pl. V).[85] As regards the apsidal
buildings of the Altis of Olympia which represent the crucial find complex of
Cetina-type pottery in Greece, J. Rambach has recently demonstrated that the
find assemblages with the clearest links to the Cetina culture belong to the
later part of EH III which corresponds to the very end of the 3rd millennium BC.[86] Thus, while Cetina-type pottery in Southern Greece appears from early EH III
onwards, for instance in Lerna IV, at Korakou, Kolonna on Aegina and at the
site of the New Museum of Olympia,[87] it reaches its highest frequency shortly before 2000 BC. A late 3rd millennium date for Cetina is also supported by the situation in the other
areas of its distribution where related finds appear in contexts contemporary
with the late stage of the Bell Beaker phenomenon as well as the incipient
Central European Early Bronze Age.[88] In the latter regard, the connection between some of the characteristic
features of Cetina-decoration and the so-called “symbolically decorated
pottery” of the late Nagyrév culture[89] in the central part of the Carpathian basin deserve special attention (Pl.
IIIa:1.4).[90] Admittedly, all this indirect evidence for dating the Cetina culture does not
preclude the possibility that in its Eastern Adriatic core-area it began
earlier, i.e. prior to 2200 BC, and this issue has to be clarified by a series
of 14C dates. However, what the evidence from Greece seems to
suggest is that the long-distance spreading of the Cetina phenomenon took place
during the last two centuries of the 3rd millennium BC and that
perhaps towards the very end of that millennium an intensification of the
interconnections occurred.

Again, it is
difficult to reconcile the described exchange constellations in the Adriatic-Ionian
region with the notion of the Aegean acting as the “centre” and the West
Balkans and Italy as a “periphery”, but for other reasons than in the first
chronological horizon. The first reason relates to the fact that the contacts
coincide with one of the most profound upheavals in the prehistory of Greece. Most achievements in architecture and administration which had characterized the
period of the corridor-houses disappear around 2200 BC, only to be found again
on the Greek Mainland some 800 years later in Mycenaean times![91] At first sight it seems
strange, that just during such “crisis years” a wide interaction zone in the
Adriatic and Ionian Sea should come into being. In order to understand, why
this nevertheless makes sense we get to the second point why it is problematic
to conceive of the Balkans as a “periphery” during the last two centuries of
the 3rd millennium BC.

The different
groups along the shores of the Adriatic-Ionian region which are related to the
Cetina culture, have in common that they either replace earlier cultures or
form alien elements amongst a differing cultural milieu.[92] An example for the first
category is the Tarxien Cemetery Culture of the Maltese Islands which bears no
resemblance to the previous Temple Culture. To the second category belong sites
like Rutigliano-Le Rene at the Apulian coast[93] or Olympia in Elis. I regard all this as a reflection of activities of a seafaring
population specialized in maritime exchange, which originated in the East
Adriatic Region and spread along the shores of the Adriatic and Ionian Sea. In doing this, these “Argonauts of the West Balkans” took advantage of the
crisis situation in regions like Malta and the Peloponnese, and occupied places
which were of crucial importance for Mediterranean exchange.

The emergence of
the Cetina phenomenon goes along with a re-structuring of the exchange patterns
in the Aegean in which some areas suffer a setback and others rise to new
importance. That Crete belongs to the “winners” is documented, among other things,
by the founding of the Minoan settlement on Kythera.[94] As regards trans-Aegean trade
we can be certain that it still flourished between 2200 and 2000 BC. To
document the extent of exchange connections within the Eastern Mediterranean at
that time I only want to mention the fragment of an imported flask of the EB IV
period in Israel which was identified by E. Oren among the Early Bronze sherd
material from Tiryns.[95] It seems to me, that during the last centuries of the 3rd millennium
BC we are confronted with a quantum-leap in Mediterranean connectivity. Besides
the East-West-axis in the East Mediterranean and the North-South axis in the
Adriatic-Ionian region the integration of the Maltese Islands for the first
time document the cross-linking of exchange circuits from the Tyrrhenian Sea to
the East Mediterranean. This provided the background for a hitherto unknown
flow not only of metals and other commodities, but also of ideas and
information about the Mediterranean and its populations.

To underline
that the range of interconnections goes far beyond the realm of pottery, I only
want to mention four unusual groups of items: 1. Bossed-bone plaques appearing
between Sicily and the Troad.[96] The spreading of these enigmatic objects with still unexplained function is
likely to be an outcome of the described patterns of connectivity. While the
examples from Sicily, Troy and Malta cannot be precisely dated, the bossed-bone
plaque from Lerna derives from an EH III context[97] and the long-known piece from
Altamura-Casal Sabini in Apulia is now known to have been found in a
chamber-tomb which also yielded Cetina-pottery;[98] 2. Bone toggles, which are
distributed between Central Europe and Southern Greece. The appearance of these
seemingly humble objects seems to be a late 3rd millennium BC
feature linked to the Bell Beaker phenomenon and transmitted to Greece via
Italy;[99] 3. Violin-shaped terracotta figurines occurring from the West Balkans to Southern Greece. The only example of this type of figurine from Lerna IV (Pl. IV:6) shows a
painted EH III decoration. It cannot be related to Early Cycladic stone
figurines of similar shape, since these had already disappeared more than 800
years earlier.[100] Identical terracotta figurines, albeit without decoration, have been found in
ritual figurine deposits in two tumuli in Shtoj (cf. Pl. IV:8.10) in Northern
Albania and in Kuča Rakića (cf. Pl. IV:7.9) in Montenegro;[101] 4. Bronze/copper spear-heads
with two hafting slots found between the Aegean and Central Europe. The only
example of this Aegean-type of weapon occurring outside of the Mediterranean is
the piece from a hoard of the Únětice culture of the incipient Central European
Early Bronze Age in Kyhna in Saxonia.[102] Since the chemical composition of the metal of the Kyhna spear-head corresponds
to the one of the majority of clearly local objects from the hoard the object
is likely to have been manufactured in Central Europe.[103] It seems, that either an
Aegean type of weapon was emulated[104] or that an Aegean spear-head mould reached the Únětice region.[105]

In light of all
this, the late 3rd millennium BC seems to have been of crucial
importance for the development of maritime connectivity and for the process of
the mental mapping of the Mediterranean. But seemingly, this pattern of
connectivity did not represent the direct precursor of the trade patterns of the
emerging Minoan palatial civilization. On the contrary, after the
disintegration of the Cetina phenomenon around 2000 BC roughly four centuries
had to pass until, during the formative stage of the Mycenaean period, we find again
evidence for an exchange axis linking the Central Mediterranean with Greece.[106] As one mayor reason for a
possible interruption of exchange in the Central Mediterranean I suspect the
social and economic dynamics on Crete which led to the focusing of trade
activities on the Aegean, the Near East and Egypt.[107]

In closing, I
would like to come back to the interpretation of the emergence of new
structures of Mediterranean exchange and pose a question whether it is
coincidental that all this got underway at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC, i.e. contemporary with the start of the Early Bronze Age in the Near East. In the course of this paper, I repeatedly spoke out against explaining the
described structures in the framework of Centre-Periphery models, and this
mainly for two reasons. First, because they are usually based on notions of
economic dependency for which we have no evidence at that early date; secondly,
because such models often tend to ascribe the “active” role to “civilizations”,
while the allegedly under-developed populations of the “peripheries” are denied
agency and are more or less reduced to passive providers of raw material.[108] While I would reject the simplistic
use of centre-periphery models, I find it conceivable that in a more subtle way
indeed forms of early globalization were involved in the patterns we encounter.
What I envisage is a structure resembling the one already sketched by A.
Harding,[109] some sort of “decentralized globalization”, in which independently from each
other in different parts of the Mediterranean interaction zones came into
being, guided by different motifs and interests. But in order to gain a new
quality they had to be cross-linked, and in this process the demand for raw
materials created by Early Near Eastern civilizations may have served as an
impulse which was transmitted like in a chain-reaction through already existing
trade networks, thus indirectly contributing to the development of new exchange
patterns.

But the
described trajectory of the development of trade relations also underlines the
impact of the agency of societies of the so-called periphery. If I am not
mistaken, we have to qualify the idea of associating prehistoric migrations
from the Balkans into the Aegean with notions of war and destruction. The
population movement involved in the Cetina phenomenon of the late 3rd millennium BC was not the reason, but the effect of the break-down of the EH
II-culture, and these peoples were descendants of Balkan populations who had
been the exchange partners of the Aegean for more than 500 years and who with
these contacts had contributed to the widening of the mutual perception of the
surrounding world. Through the activity of the sea-faring population of a West
Balkan origin for a short time a new dimension of cross-linking of different
parts of the Mediterranean emerged which, even if it did not lead directly to
the East-West contacts of the incipient Mycenaean period, nevertheless formed a
crucial threshold in the long-term process of the unfolding of the
Mediterranean.

* I would like to thank Sveta
Matskevich, the draughtswoman of our institute, for her invaluable help in the
preparation of the plates.

[1] R.A. CROSSLAND and A. BIRCHALL (eds), Bronze Age Migrations in
the Aegean: Archaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greek Prehistory. Proceedings
of the First International Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory, Sheffield (1973); E. ARDITIS (ed), Acta of the 2nd International Colloquium
on Aegean Prehistory. The First Arrival of Indo-Europeans Elements in Greece (1972).

[2] See for
instance R. CHAPMAN, Emerging Complexity: The Later Prehistory of South-East
Spain, Iberia and the West Mediterranean (1990) 18-34 with earlier
literature.

[4] For the
ancient Near East see M. LIVERANI, Prestige and Interest. International
Relations in the Near East ca. 1600-1100 B.C. (1990) 51-65, for the general
link between maps and world views cf. U. SCHNEIDER, Die Macht der Karten.
Eine Geschichte der Kartographie vom Mittelalter bis heute (2004) 7-32.

[5] Especially in F. BRAUDEL, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean
World in the Age of Philip II (1976); for an assessment of the ideas of
Braudel see P. HORDEN and N. PURCELL, The Corrupting Sea: A Study of
Mediterranean History (2000) 36-43.

[22] C.
BROODBANK and T.F. STRASSER, “Migrant Farmers and the Neolithic
Colonization of Crete,” Antiquity 65 (1991) 237-239; M. ÖZDOĞAN, “The
Expansion of the Neolithic Way of Life: What we know and what we do not know,”
in C. LICHTER (ed), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European
Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of
the 6th Millennium Cal. BC. Proceedings of the International
Workshop, Istanbul, 20-22 May 2004 (2005) 13-27; N. EFSTRATIOU, “Tracing
the Story of the First Farmers in Greece – A Long and Winding Road,” in ibid.
143-153; M. BUDJA, “The Transition to Farming in Southeast Europe: Perspectives
from Pottery,” Documenta Praehistorica 28 (2001) 27-42; C. PERLÈS, “An
Alternate (and Old-fashioned) View of Neolithisation in Greece,” Documenta
Praehistorica 30 (2003) 99-110. See also the evidence for maritime mobility
already at the very beginning of the Near Eastern Neolithic in the 9th millennium BC as evidenced by recent discoveries on Cyprus: E. PELTENBURG,
“Introduction: a Revised Cypriot Prehistory and Some Implications for the Study
of the Neolithic,” in E. PELTENBURG and A. WASSE, Neolithic Revolution: New
Perspectives on Southwest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries on Cyprus. Papers
from a Conference Organized by the Council for British Research in the Levant
in Collaboration with the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 20th to
23rd September 2001, Drousha Village, Cyprus (2004) XI-XVII; B.
FINLAYSON, “Island Colonization, Insularity or Mainstream?,” in ibid. 15-21.

[27] Chr. A.
TELEVANTOU, “Strophilas – A Neolithic Settlement on Andros,” in ‛Oρίζων. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25-28 March 2004 McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge (in print).

[28] BROODBANK and STRASSER (supra n. 22) 239-242. Revealingly, from the
Early Bronze Age site of Korfi t’Aroniou on Naxos as well as from the recently
discovered Chalcolithic site of Strophilas on Naxos come depictions of boats
carrying animals: BROODBANK (supra n. 24) 99; fig. 23, TELEVANTOU (supra n. 27).

[30] R. TORRENCE, Production and Exchange of Stone Tools. Prehistoric
Obsidian in the Aegean (1986) 93-114.

[31] Interestingly, in Italy a significant use of copper can be observed only as of
the second half of the fourth millennium BC, i.e. at the time of the decline of
copper production and use in the Balkans and the Carpathian Basin: D. COCCHI GENICK, Manuale di Preistoria III. L’età del rame (1996) 197-205.

[32] With
this remark I only refer to the mechanisms of connections between the Balkans
and the Aegean. Within the Aegean there is of course evidence for sea-borne
contacts during the Late Neolithic and the Chalcolithic, through which even
symbols of Balkan derivation, like ring-pendants of metal or other materials, could
spread as far as the Cyclades and Crete: K. DIMAKOPOULOU, Κοσμήματα της Ελληνικής Προϊστορίας. Ο Νεολιθικός Θησαυρός. Εθνικό
Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο, 15 Δεκεμβρίου 1998 – 28 Φεβρουαρίου 1999 (1998) 51-67; K.I. ZACHOS and A. DOUZOUGLI, “Aegean Metallurgy: How Early and How Independent?,” in P..P. BETANCOURT, V. KARAGEORGHIS, R. LAFFINEUR, W.D. NIEMEIER (eds), MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to
Malcolm H. Wiener as he Enters his 65th Year, Aegaeum 20 (1999) 959-968; J. MARAN, “Das ägäische Chalkolithikum und das erste
Silber in Europa,” in C. IŞIK (ed), Studien zur Religion und Kultur
Kleinasiens und des ägäischen Bereiches. Festschrift für Baki Öğün zum 75.
Geburtstag (2000) 185-192; TELEVANTOU (supra n. 27)

[36] In
MARAN (supra n. 35) 330-333 I mistakenly followed the then prevalent
research opinion and assigned the central graves of Mala Gruda and Velika Gruda
to the post-Vučedol period. Thanks to the analysis of M. Primas this assessment
was disproved and it became evident that both graves are earlier and belong to
the hitherto little known Montenegrinian variant of the Vučedol culture proper,
see postscript in MARAN, op.cit. 330 footnote 243.

[42] Contrary to the often held view that the R-graves should be dated to EH III or
even later times, there are actually only scant indications that some of these
graves might be later than the late EH II. For the chronological assessment of
the R-graves and earlier literature see K. ZACHOS, Agios Dimitrios. A
Prehistoric Settlement in the Southwestern Peloponnesos: The Neolithic and
Early Helladic Periods (Diss. Boston University, 1987) 186-187, 270-271;
MARAN (supra n. 35) 102-104; Hitherto, three golden rings from the
pithos grave R15b (W. DÖRPFELD, Alt-Ithaka [1927] Beilage 60,4) were
cited as comparisons for the pieces from the Montenegrinian tumulus burials and
from other sites in the Balkans and the Carpathian Basin: cf. CIUGUDEAN (supra n. 40) 94; PRIMAS (supra n. 37) 84; MARAN, op.cit. 330-331. Only
recently it became clear, that there are six golden rings of the type Lefkas
among the finds of the R-graves: I. PAPAGEORGIOU, “Χρυσό ενώτιο της Πρώιμης
Εποχής του Χαλκού στις συλλογές του Μουσείου Μπενάκη,” in A. VLACHOPOULOS and
K. BIRTACHA, Αργοναύτης – Τιμητικός τόμος γιά τον καθηγητή Χρίστο Γ. Ντούμα
από τους μαθητές του στο Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών (1980-2000) (2003) 216 fig. 9.
PAPAGEORGIOU, op.cit. 219-220 assigns all six rings to the pithos grave R15b
and postulates a similar head ornament as in the Montenegrinian graves. She
states that previous authors erroneously were led to believe that three such
rings came from grave R15b because only these were depicted in the publication
(PAPAGEORGIOU, op.cit. 216 with footnote 14). Unfortunately, it is not that
simple, because she fails to notice that in the German text of the original
publication it is twice mentioned that three rings were found in R15b: W.
DÖRPFELD and P. GOESSLER, “Die Gräber in der Nidri-Ebene,” in DÖRPFELD, op.cit.
235; P. GOESSLER, “Die Einzelfunde der Ausgrabungen,” in ibid. 288-289. Thus,
the question arises whether the excavators forgot to refer to the other three
examples from R15b, or whether these were found in a different context. Indeed,
K.L. ZACHOS and A.S. DOUZOUGLI, Λευκάδα. Ιστορική-Αρχαιολογική επισκόπηση
μέσα από τα Εκθέματα του Αρχαιολογικού Μουσείου (2003) 35-37 divide the six
rings into two groups of three golden rings each, which they assign to the pyre
in tumulus R4 and the pithos grave R15b respectively, but they do not specify
on what information this is based. In the original publication only one golden
ring is mentioned from the pyre in R4 and this ring seems to belong to a
different type: DÖRPFELD and GOESSLER, op.cit. 227; GOESSLER, op.cit. 288;
Beilage 61,b1. In order to solve the problems of attribution one has to wait
for the new study of the R-graves which is currently undertaken by Dr. I.
Kilian-Dirlmeier.

[44] Golden
rings of the type Lefkas are known, besides from the two Montenegrinian tumulus
burials of Velika Gruda and Boljevića Gruda, also from tumulus burials in
Ampoiţa in Transylvania and from Tărnava in Northwest Bulgaria: see CIUGUDEAN (supra n. 40) 94.

[45] Whether the connection between the Eastern Adriatic region and Greece in the first half of the 3rd millennium BC expresses itself in other
elements than the few discussed precious objects has to be investigated. PRIMAS
(supra n. 37) 63-65 makes the interesting suggestion that the elaborate
stamp decoration (“false Kerbschnitt”) which is so typical for the
Vučedol culture in the West and Central Balkans is related to similar modes of
pottery decoration occurring in contemporary Aegean contexts, most prominently
in the Cyclades. Since I do not see any striking correspondences in form and
decoration between Vučedol and Aegean pottery it is premature to decide whether
these similarities are merely fortuitous or based on a actual relations.

[47] For a
comprehensive discussion of the Anatolian origin of the Mala Gruda dagger see MARAN
(supra n. 34) 175; ID. (supra n. 35) 331-332. The Mala Gruda
dagger and its comparisons are linked to the Type 4a of the typology of
Anatolian Early Bronze Age daggers developed by D.B.
STRONACH, “The Development and
Diffusion of Metal Types in Early Bronze Age Anatolia,” AnatSt 7 (1957) 98-99, although I would classify them as a separate
sub-group within this type. Characteristic for this sub-group are the slightly
sloping and very short shoulders, the pronounced mid-rib and the trapezoid or
rectangular hilt-plate which, in the case of the Mala Gruda dagger, is topped
by a central lobe with a third rivet-hole. Besides the two depicted daggers
from Bayındırköy (Pl. 1:3-4) in Northwest Anatolia there is a third such dagger
from the same site: STRONACH, op.cit. fig. 1:14; pl. 7:b1.

[50] But
see K. BRANIGAN, “Prehistoric Relations between Italy and the Aegean,” BPI N.S.
75 (1966) 97-109; ID., “Halberds, Daggers and Culture Contact,” Origini 5
(1971) 47-57; PRIMAS (supra n. 37) 61. In my opinion, the metal and
pottery forms cited by Branigan and Primas are morphologically not that
distinctive to exclude a fortuitous convergence. There is a discussion on
whether connections between cultures of Italy, the Balkans and the Aegean
existed at an even earlier date, namely during the late fourth millennium BC,
at the time of the transition between the Late Chalcolithic and the incipient
Early Bronze Age in the Aegean, see recently M. CULTRARO, “Aspetti
dell’Eneolitico dell’Italia Centrale nel quadro dei rapporti con la penisola
Balcanica e l’Egeo,” in Atti della XXXIV Riunione Scientifica Preistoria e
Protostoria della Toscana, Firenze, 29 Settembre – 2 Ottobre 1999 (2001)
215-229 with earlier literature.

[55] In the
Carpathian Basin and the Balkans during the first half of the 3rd millennium
the favorite weapon was the shaft-hole axe and not the dagger, which was so
common in the Aegean and the Near East. This juxtaposition of a “Balkan-Carpathian
axe circle” and an “Aegean-Near Eastern dagger circle” explains why the
isolated occurrence of a dagger in Mala Gruda is a long-distance import from
the south: J. MARAN, “Der Depotfund von Petralona (Nordgriechenland) und der
Symbolgehalt von Waffen in der ersten Hälfte des 3. Jahrtausends
v. Chr. zwischen Karpatenbecken und Ägäis,” in R.M. BOEHMER and J. MARAN (eds), Lux Orientis. Archäologie zwischen Asien und
Europa (2001) 277-283. What other weapons of Aegean
or Near Eastern origin may have reached the north during that period is
unclear. The Hungarian National Museum in Budapest bought in the late 19th cent. a silver dagger with a rounded hilt-plate, which on morphological grounds
is likely to be of Aegean origin and of 3rd millennium BC date.
Unfortunately the place of its discovery is unknown and therefore it is
possible that it was brought to Hungary in modern times through the collecting
of antiquities: A. MOZSOLICS, Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdúsámson und Kosziderpadlás (1967) 173; T. KOVÁCS, “Bronzezeitliche Schmuckgegenstände, Waffen und
Goldschätze,” in T. KOVÁCS and P. RACZKY (eds), Prähistorische Goldschätze
aus dem Ungarischen Nationalmuseum. Ausstellung im Museum für Vor- und
Frühgeschichte, Archäologisches Museum Frankfurt am Main, 16.10.1999 – 9.1.2000 (1999) 58-59; fig. 31; HANSEN (supra n. 49) 37.

[56] Besides the silver axe from Mala Gruda, there is the pair of silver axes from
Stari Jankovci and the four silver axes from a hoard of unknown Balkan or
Carpathian provenance in the A. Guttmann collection in Berlin: J. BALEN and S.
MIHELIĆ, “Par srebrnih sjekira iz Starih Jankovaca,” Opuscula Archaeologica
(Zagreb) 27 (2003) 85-95 and this volume; S. HANSEN (supra n. 49)
13-23. The axe from Boljevića Gruda consists of beautiful green granite:
SAVELJIĆ-BULATOVIĆ and LUTOVAC (supra n. 37) 17, 29-31. While in the Near East during the first half of the 3rd millennium BC daggers made of
precious metal relatively often appear, axes of precious metal are extremely
rare and, as far as I know, restricted to the Early Dynastic Royal Cemetery of
Ur. From Grave 580 there is a shaft-hole adze and from Grave 755 a shaft-hole
axe as well as a very unusual double-fenestrated axe, all of which allegedly
consist of electrum: C.L. WOOLLEY, Ur Excavations, Volume II. The Royal Cemetery (1934) pls. 155:b (U.10025), 156:1 (U.10018), 165 (U.9339); see Hansen (supra n. 49) 38. I would like to thank Prof. P. Miglus (Heidelberg) for providing
me with information on precious metal weapons in the Near East.

[57] A.
APPADURAI, “Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value,” in A.
APPADURAI (ed), The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural
Perspective (1986) 16-29; J. BENNET, “Iconographies of Value: Words, People
and Things in the Late Bronze Age Aegean,” in J.C. BARRETT and P. HALSTEAD
(eds), The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited (2004) 90-101.

[59] M.J.
ROWLANDS, “Modes of Exchange and the Incentives for Trade, with Reference to
Later European Prehistory,” in C. RENFREW (ed), The Explanation of Culture
Change: Models in Prehistory (1973) 596-599; MARAN (supra n. 35) 437.

[61] Of the
six analyzed metal objects from Sitagroi phase IV, which should date to the
late 4th millennium BC, three, a pin and two metal fragments, have
tin contents between 0.69 and 5.9%, while the sole analyzed object attributable
to Phase Va, which dates to the early 3rd millennium BC, shows 0.9%
tin: C. RENFREW and E.A. SLATER in: E.S. ELSTER and C. RENFREW (eds), Prehistoric
Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968-1970. Volume 2: The Final
Report (2003) 300-307; for the chronological position of Sitagroi IV and Va
see MARAN (supra n. 35) 124-127, 338-344; NIKOLOVA (supra n. 35) 187-191,
199-202. RENFREW and SLATER, op.cit. 313 cast doubts on the validity of the
early tin bronzes from Sitagroi IV and Va, but their skeptical attitude seems
to be based mainly on the consideration that these would be isolated examples
of the earliest bronze objects in the Aegean. But other indications suggest
that the Sitagroi evidence fits very well in a general picture of an early
horizon of a sporadic use of tin in the early 3rd millennium BC in
this zone: J.D. MUHLY and E. PERNICKA, “Early Trojan Metallurgy and Metals
Trade,” in J. HERRMANN (ed), Heinrich Schliemann. Grundlagen und Ergebnisse
moderner Archäologie 100 Jahre nach Schliemanns Tod (1992) 311. From Thermi
on Lesbos, town I, comes a pin which seems to consist of tin-bronze: C. DESCH
in W. LAMB, Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos (1936) 215; J.D. MUHLY,
“Beyond Typology: Aegean Metallurgy in its Historical Context,” in N.C. WILKIE
and W.D.E. COULSON (eds), Contributions to Aegean Archaeology: Studies in
Honor of William A. McDonald (1985) 119; F. BEGEMANN, S. SCHMITT-STRECKER,
and E. PERNICKA, “The Metal Finds from Thermi III – V: A Chemical and
Lead-Isotope Study,” Studia Troica 2 (1992) 223. The early Troy I-settlement of Beşik-Yassıtepe has yielded two bronze objects: MUHLY and PERNICKA,
op.cit. 311. Among the furnishings of the central grave of Velika Gruda is a
unique type of knife or razor made of tin bronze: PRIMAS (supra n. 37)
97-98; figs. 7.5,M2. For a thorough assessment of the early use of tin see
C.F.E. PARE, “Bronze and the Bronze Age,” in C.F.E. PARE (ed), Metals Make
the World Go Round: The Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe.
Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of Birmingham in June 1997 (2000)
1-32.

[67] For a
recent overview on the present state of research relating to the Bell Beaker
phenomenon see F. NICOLIS (ed), Bell Beakers Today. Pottery, People,
Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International
Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11-16 May 1998 (2001).

[70] St.
XANTHOUDIDES, The Vaulted Tombs of the Mesará. An Account of Some Early
Cemeteries of Southern Crete (1924) 20; pls. 23:787-788, 39:1060,
43:a(lower row), 54:1899-1900.2008-2011. For the
morphological differentiation of Bell Beaker wrist-guards see E. SANGMEISTER,
“Zwei Neufunde der Glockenbecherkultur in Baden-Württemberg,” Fundberichte
aus Baden-Württemberg 1 (1974) 115-118; fig. 8. While
V. HEYD, Die Spätkupferzeit in Süddeutschland (2000) 283-286 rightly
points out that wrist-guards with two perforations already appear from the
beginning of the Bell Beaker phenomenon, they nevertheless are most often found
during its later part.

[71] E.C. BANKS, The Early and Middle Helladic Small Objects from
Lerna (Diss. University of Cincinnati, 1967) 214-219; pl. 8 (lower row).

[72] BANKS (supra n. 71) 218. XANTHOUDIDES (supra n. 70) 20
on the other hand has noted “…traces of rubbing on one side…” of a particularly
long example from Koumasa (our Pl. 4:1). In order to gain additional
information concerning the function of such stone implements it is clearly
necessary to re-examine them and to determine the origin of traces of use-wear
on them.

[75] For
the Cetina phenomenon in Southern and Southeastern Europe see MARAN (supra n.
34, 1997) 172-174; ID. (supra n. 35) 18-24, 277, 323-330, 369-372,
404-410, 445-446 with earlier literature on the Cetina culture and on the EH
III incised and impressed pottery of Olympia and other sites. For the Tarxien Cemetery culture see J.D. EVANS, The Prehistoric Antiquities of the Maltese
Islands: A Survey (1971) 149-166, 224-225. The vessel reproduced as our
Plate IIIa:6 was found in the temple of Tarxien, but may well belong not to the
temple phase, but rather to the Tarxien Cemetery culture.

[85] S. MANNING, The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze:
Archaeology, Radiocarbon and History (1995) 151-153.DELLA CASA (supra n. 82) 573 arrived at a significantly earlier dating for EH III because he
followed the dates given in P. WARREN and V. HANKEY, Aegean Bronze Age
Chronology (1989) 124, 169 without realizing that their definition of this
phase differs from the one of J.L. Caskey insofar as it encompasses under the
term “Early Helladic IIIA” also the find assemblages of the Lefkandi 1 type
which, as many argue, should mainly be correlated with the second half of EH
II: cf. J.B. RUTTER, Ceramic Change in the Aegean Early Bronze Age. The
Kastri Group, Lefkandi I, and Lerna IV: A Theory Concerning the Origin of Early
Helladic III Ceramics (1979); MANNING, op.cit. 51-63, 81-86; E. CHRISTMANN, Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien II. Die frühe Bronzezeit (1996) 289-300; MARAN (supra n. 35) 33-35, 56-60, 97-98, 139-150, 153-156.

[95] E.D.
OREN, “Interconnections between the Southern Levant and the Aegean at the End
of the Early Bronze Age,” ErIsr 27 (2003) 10-17 (Hebrew Section); fig.
1. The continuity of exchange transactions between East and West is also
underlined by what I have called the „Euboia-Magnesia group“ which dates to the
time of Lefkandi 3 and, during the later EH III, is characterized by a
relatively high amount of light-coloured wheelmade ware linked to West
Anatolian pottery of the Troy IV-period, see MARAN (supra n. 35) 99-101,
280-282, 419-420.

Published also in: I. Galanaki, H. Tomas, Y. Galanakis and R. Laffineur (eds.), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas: Prehistory across Borders. Proceedings of the International Conference Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe, University of Zagreb, 11-14 April 2005, Aegaeum 27 (2007) 3-21.